Interestingly, as opponents of science (…..) continue to take on increasingly scientific-sounding arguments (….) this study demonstrates that these are only quasi-scientific, manufactured to support a particular viewpoint and not intended to actually communicate new information.

I am kinda tired of animal rightists trolls in my comments, so feel free to dissect this site on your own blogs….

On the other hand, I’d like someone with some expertise in reading legalese to explain what SB1032 really means.

Comments

My favorite is when they tell me I can do all my experiments on computers. No need for cells, serum, antibodies, in vivo studies, nothing. Just computers and human experimentation, their idea of the future of bioscience.

Don’t worry, I’m not an animal rights nutjob, but I still have a problem defending the apparent species-ist stance of a lot of researchers. How do you back up treating one species as expendable while our own species seems to be sacred? Do you use intelligence (or lack thereof) to decide whether an animal can be experimented on? Or awareness of pain? Also do you support all animal experimentation, including for non-fatal ilnesses or cosmetic products/procedures?

Honestly not trolling, and I appreciate that these experiments can save lives in the long run, just genuinely interested in the arguments.

We spend at least 6 months discussing every experiment that we may want to do (and may have already got NIH funding for beforehand) before we decide if it is worth doing and if we are certain that we have perfected the experimental design in a way that will maximize the usefulness of the experiment. The important guiding principle is that we want to minimize the number of animals we use, minimize the pain, and maximize the benefit we gain from doing the experiment.

Then, we spend a couple of months dealing with IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Commitee) over the details of all the proposed experiments before they are approved, although they had initially approved the experiments as described in our grant proposal (NIH requires the IACUC approval to be sent with the proposal). Often we have to modify the procedure, or even abandon an experiment, due to IACUC non-approval (IACUCs are semi-fascist organizations IMHO).

Since then, we in the field, myself included, have gradually moved away from this kind of research. Each experiment takes forever. It takes a lot of work. It takes a lot of animals. It sometimes requires invasive surgery.
——snip———
Those experiments were faster and easier to do, required smaller numbers of animals and almost no invasive surgery – something that is more and more difficult to do these days both because of tightening IACUC rules and because it is hard for us to persuade ourselves that much of it is necessary any more. The approach was very fruitfull over the decades, but now it suffers from the effect of diminishing returns. It had to be done at the time when it revolutionized our understanding of circadian systems, less so now when it may just add new detail. Such experiments used to eliminate five out of ten alternative hypotheses, now more like one out of three – often not sufficiently important to actually decide to perform the study.

Seems we hear the protestors’ side of things everywhere we go, from news stories to stalls set up on the streets such as the Huntingdon Life Sciences stand that always seems to apear on Princes Street here in Edinburgh. I reckon a lot of people who are instinctively against animal testing would change their minds if they realised the modern reality behind it.